Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
>i can make one and put it on my homepage, but well just for testing
>there is no way at this stage of gcc3 to make the default kernel
>compiler.
>
Of course. I'm sure it will be a long time before something so drastic :)
Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I (at a later date when it is thoroughly more developed) were to
> get you the white papers concerning the api standardization and
> changes/upgrades/fixes in gcc 3 would you consider making a
> kernel-gcc-etc.rpm for testing purposes? I care not to c
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
>
>the problem is that the gcc bugs are really hard to trigger, i remeber
>compiling all kernel with gcc2.95 until we saw a bug in the a scsci
>drivers that does timeout just because it was compiled with gcc2.95,
>so i stick to egcs..
>
If I (at a later date when it is tho
Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Once upon a time, not too long ago, Chmouel made a remark about how he
> did not feel comfortable building kernel packages with gcc and would
> much rather stick to the rock solid (if old) egcs releases. I
> wondered in thinking about the long off gcc 3
This came up in a reply I wrote to gwenole that never got sent (I hate
my isp).
Once upon a time, not too long ago, Chmouel made a remark about how he
did not feel comfortable building kernel packages with gcc and would
much rather stick to the rock solid (if old) egcs releases. I wondered
i
